Guest DWA Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Well, I'd agree with that, too. I have long been a proponent of getting confirmation in the field, not from specimens of uncertain provenance in a lab. I would like 'em to point to the animal the specimen came from; DNA is like fingerprints. If the print doesn't point to anyone, what good is it? That type specimen is gonna be needed for the mainstream to climb on board. Then? Let the taxonomists fight it out.
southernyahoo Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 So, am I to presume you feel Sykes is waisting his time? Do you call the expectations from his study pure noise? DNA from a pinky bone was published clearly pointing to yet another hominin in our past," Denisovans". Guess what, no body to go with it. You shouldn't let science off the hook when they are setting the standard and precedent.
Guest DWA Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 I want to see what the mainstream does with the results. Maybe it's my selfish desire to at least see what one looks like before I die. But given my review of the evidence and the potential for contamination, it's pretty hard for me to get "sasquatch is human" from a steak. It's always gone: here's the animal, and now here's its signature. Whatever Sykes says, I won't be seeing an animal. Unless somebody gets real lucky in the interim and puts one in front of me, or I get even luckier than that. Nobody who is researching this is wasting his time. But I see how the mainstream treats the evidence.
MIB Posted September 11, 2013 Moderator Posted September 11, 2013 I don't think Sykes is wasting his time. Assuming his efforts are sincere and his reporting accurate, whatever he finds will mean something. Regardless, I think the scoffers will still scoff even if he finds proof and the believers will still believe even if he finds nothing. Among honest skeptics and the truly curious, though, I hope new questions and ideas will be born. Yep, some days I'm a pie in the sky idealist. MIB
Guest DWA Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Sykes is serious. Whatever the questions, they'll move the needle. Your presumptions taken into account of course. Some of us believe; some of us deny. Some of us need evidence. WSA and I have been playing soccer with this the past day, and we are both past the need for either societal or personal proof. The evidence satisfies us, until someone proves it wrong. (Somebody's got to be a scientist here.) Besides, of course, my selfish desire to see what one looks like before I die. I mean, besides that.
Guest Loomy Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Agreed Sunflower. They talk for crying out loud! They are a form of human(in my opinion) How many types of "human" have walked this earth? Homo sapien,Neanderthal ,Heidelbergansis etc.... Every sample that comes up saying human is contaminated ?Couldnt they just be true samples?And science can't see the Forrest thru the trees? Don't know. Could they have just evolved more than we?We have computers to do our thinking.cars to travel in.Although we have made our lives more convenient .Have we not devolved as a species?No more great thinkers ,composers,writers.Mabe they use way more than the 7% of their brain power than we do.Mabe that is why they can "zap" us to the point that we are in a haze and don't remember time. I really think there has to be one scientists on this planet that will take this project on.Can someone give up a sample and NOT tell what it supposedly came from? Mabe the Russians will get it done.I hear Putin believes they exist . Mabe if Melba didn't charge $30 to read the report,she would have been taken more seriously!,
Sunflower Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 (edited) Talk, howl like a wolf, cluck like a chicken, screech like a peacock, croak like frogs, can imitate machinery (wow), whistle, bark like a dog, meow like a kitten, coo like a dove, hoot like an owl, etc. Edited September 13, 2013 by Sunflower
Guest Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 There is a company called Oxford Nonometere Technologies that promised beginning of 2012 to have developed (looked like vapor ware for funding maybe) a small, almost thumb drive size, DNA in field test array..that one merely puts in the USB drive....so a type of emulsion or such PCR type dna amplification, with reagents or whatever to tag and so read... they did not mention what reagents required in the field to get to that point... if any..but the cost is to be $700..that's it.... it is to replace the $500K Illumina technology for field biologists, etc...can you imagine..the cost of one complete genome is about $800 now... so, it seems eventually...if not this year..maybe in five a half dozen BFers willbe out there with DNA sequence testing on the truck tailgate.
Guest Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 yeah, well I googled to see if a prototype out yet, and doesn't appear to be..so we'll see...but the idea is there and the technology not too far behind... they aren't publicly traded..and in the UK...
Guest Urkelbot Posted September 13, 2013 Posted September 13, 2013 There is a company called Oxford Nonometere Technologies that promised beginning of 2012 to have developed (looked like vapor ware for funding maybe) a small, almost thumb drive size, DNA in field test array..that one merely puts in the USB drive....so a type of emulsion or such PCR type dna amplification, with reagents or whatever to tag and so read... they did not mention what reagents required in the field to get to that point... if any..but the cost is to be $700..that's it.... it is to replace the $500K Illumina technology for field biologists, etc...can you imagine..the cost of one complete genome is about $800 now... so, it seems eventually...if not this year..maybe in five a half dozen BFers willbe out there with DNA sequence testing on the truck tailgate. A portable thermocycler would be possible but to preform PCR you first need to extract DNA from cells and clean up the sample. This would require a centrifuge. Sequencing requires a fluorescence imager. I have done lots of PCR and DNA sequencing and I suppose you could have an all in one device. But it would be large with lots of engineering behind it and cost a lot of money. I think we are a long way off from portable sequencers for hobbyists. But currently sequencing is fairly cheap like a few bucks a pop, at least for the short reads I do <1000bp, Its more probable that in a few years you could mail in your sample to a lab with the equipment and they sequence the genome fast and cheap.
bipedalist Posted September 14, 2013 BFF Patron Posted September 14, 2013 (edited) http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/09/ex-publicist-sally-ramey-opens-up.html As this thread is still about the Ketchum report I'm adding this. This discussion on a couple blogs that is ongoing seems to reveal some sordid details about sample retention and ownership obligations to return such sample to the Randles/Hersom team, BLAST permutations/combinations and computing power required to do a true analysis, how one percent of a full genome was attached to the paper and excuses made for where the rest of it was, the role of scientist Haskell Hart (he has a website credited in the discussion) etc. If posted elsewhere, it still needs to be posted in this thread. As a matter of fact....... it wouldn't be a bad idea to download some of these discussions and place them in a file for future reference. Edited September 14, 2013 by bipedalist
Guest Posted September 14, 2013 Posted September 14, 2013 (edited) Its more probable that in a few years you could mail in your sample to a lab with the equipment and they sequence the genome fast and cheap. the company link. It is a single molecule read method, and I can't say if they can achieve their claims. Or, what sample prep might be required prior to insertion in their apparatus.. https://www.nanoporetech.com/ Edited September 14, 2013 by apehuman
Guest Llawgoch Posted September 15, 2013 Posted September 15, 2013 Sykes is serious. Whatever the questions, they'll move the needle. Your presumptions taken into account of course. Some of us believe; some of us deny. Some of us need evidence. WSA and I have been playing soccer with this the past day, and we are both past the need for either societal or personal proof. The evidence satisfies us, until someone proves it wrong. (Somebody's got to be a scientist here.) Besides, of course, my selfish desire to see what one looks like before I die. I mean, besides that. As you 'consistently say the 'evidence' you trust is the eye-witness reports, how is anyone going to prove that wrong? Why would anyone who doesn't believe them waste time even trying given that the generally accepted view is that people's propensity to lie, make mistakes and exaggerate comfortably accounts for the number of eye witness reports we have?
Guest DWA Posted September 15, 2013 Posted September 15, 2013 As you 'consistently say the 'evidence' you trust is the eye-witness reports, how is anyone going to prove that wrong? Why would anyone who doesn't believe them waste time even trying given that the generally accepted view is that people's propensity to lie, make mistakes and exaggerate comfortably accounts for the number of eye witness reports we have? Because the "generally accepted view" is not how science does stuff. Scientists may. They're just disobedient to their practice when they do. If bigfoot skeptics actually examined their premise, they'd find it distinctly uncomfortable. But they never do. Anyone who thinks that those propensities comfortably account for reports has simply never read them, and doesn't have an opinion I can respect.
Recommended Posts